The U.S. Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals' recent decision in HD Inc., ASBCA 63794, demonstrates the importance of following the terms of a solicitation when submitting a proposal on federal projects, particularly as...more
Government contractors working for the Department of Education (DE), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and other agencies like the National Science Foundation (NSF) and Consumer Financial...more
On December 23, 2024, President Biden signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025. The annual bill authorizes spending for the Department of Defense (DOD) while setting other...more
The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) recently published its annual report, providing key statistics on cases filed at and adjudicated by the CBCA in Fiscal Year (FY) 2024. Of note, the CBCA found in favor of the...more
On October 2, 2024, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals released a copy of their opinion in Chugach Fed. Sols., Inc., ASBCA No. 62712, 2024 WL 4542405 (Oct. 2, 2024). In this case, the board found entitlement for an...more
Most government contracts include a Changes clause (notably, FAR 52.243-1), which grants the Government the right to order changes to the scope of the contractor’s work. That clause also entitles the contractor to an...more
When the U.S. Government licenses commercial software, it generally does so under the same terms as any other commercial software licensee, unless the terms of that license are inconsistent with federal law or do not...more
On Monday, June 24, 2024, a federal judge for the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas (the Court) instituted a nationwide injunction on the enforcement of portions of the US Department of Labor’s (DOL) 2023...more
When is it appropriate to consider “extrinsic evidence” of the parties’ intent when interpreting a contractor’s release of claims? A new decision out of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”), Sonabend Company...more
In the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) appeal of McCarthy HITT – Next NGA West JV, ASBCA No. 63571, 2023 WL 9179193 (Dec. 20, 2023), a contractor brought suit for a collection of COVID-19-related claims on...more
WHAT: In Aviation Training Consulting, LLC, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) held that it had jurisdiction to hear the contractor’s claim for increased costs to keep its workforce in a ready state during...more
On December 20, 2023, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (the Board) denied the government’s motion to dismiss pandemic-related claims. In doing so, the Board rejected the government’s arguments alleging that the...more
In Granite Construction Company, ASBCA No. 62281 (November 1, 2023), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals ("Board") addressed the issue of what constitutes a reasonable period of time to suspend work under the...more
A recent decision in SBA Contracting, LLC, ASBCA No. 63320 (Oct. 3, 2023) provides an important reminder for government contractors to carefully consider the volatility of market conditions before submitting firm-fixed price...more
Federal contractors are winning a safeguard against the government’s practice of moving to dismiss cases brought under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA) for lack of jurisdiction in the late stages of litigation. Recent...more
Like the COVID-19 virus, COVID-related contract claims have not gone away. In “Contracting in the Fog of War: Recovering Costs Caused by an Epidemic,” we reported on Pernix Serka Joint Venture v. Department of State, CBCA...more
The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA or Board) issued an opinion in Appeal of StructSure Projects, Inc., granting StructSure additional COVID-19 related costs arising under a fixed-price task order. ASBCA No....more
In Innovative Technologies, Inc., ASBCA No. 6186, 62185, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA” or the “Board”) held that, despite the federal government’s failure to include or incorporate the McNamara-O’Hara...more
WHAT: After previewing earlier this year that it was reconsidering its existing precedent, the Federal Circuit held yesterday that the requirement that contractors state a “sum certain” in claims brought under the Contract...more
One of the most common concerns for federal contractors is delay. Projects can fall behind schedule for a variety of reasons that are outside of the contractor’s control (government-directed changes, differing site...more
Welcome back to our “Lifecycle of a Claim” series. This series explores the Contract Disputes Act claims process, with practical guidance stemming from recent case law every step of the way. Click the subscribe button on this...more
The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals’ (“ASBCA or “Board”) decision in Fluor Intercontinental, Inc., serves as an important reminder to prime contractors to be cognizant of the clauses they include in subcontracts for...more
The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”) recently denied a contractor’s claim for additional compensation as the contractor failed to establish its work was constructively suspended or that its contract was...more
Forty-five years after enactment of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (CDA), contractors and agencies still often struggle to identify what is and isn’t a CDA claim—a term the CDA itself does not define. Until the CDA’s...more
The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) recently issued a decision regarding a contractor’s claim for increased performance costs due to the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Notable about this case is...more